I'm a Fellow at the Adam Smith Institute in London, a writer here and there on this and that and strangely, one of the global experts on the metal scandium, one of the rare earths. An odd thing to be but someone does have to be such and in this flavour of our universe I am. I have written for The Times, Daily Telegraph, Express, Independent, City AM, Wall Street Journal, Philadelphia Inquirer and online for the ASI, IEA, Social Affairs Unit, Spectator, The Guardian, The Register and Techcentralstation. I've also ghosted pieces for several UK politicians in many of the UK papers, including the Daily Sport.

Edward Snowden To Give The Alternative Christmas Speech

Over here in Britain we have a charming little Christmas tradition: the Queen speaks to the nation through the medium of the Christmas TV speech. Way back when it always used to be followed, on the radio at least, by the broadcast of a Goon Show. No, you probably won’t know what a Goon is but don’t worry: vintage 1950s radio comedy show.

These days of course things are done a little differently. The Queen does indeed still make the Queen’s Speech (and the movie, The King’s Speech, plays off this association for the British) but now we also have a range of “alternative” Christmas speeches. And one this year, the one from Channel 4, is being given by Edward Snowden. We know pretty much what he’s going to say too:

Channel 4 said that in his message he talks about ‘why privacy matters and why he believes mass indiscriminate surveillance by governments of their people is wrong’.

Well, yes, we’d rather expect him to be saying something along those lines:

Snowden said: ‘Great Britain’s George Orwell warned us of the danger of this kind of information. The types of collection in the book – microphones and video cameras, TVs that watch us – are nothing compared to what we have available today. We have sensors in our pockets that track us everywhere we go. Think about what this means for the privacy of the average person.

‘A child born today will grow up with no conception of privacy at all. They’ll never know what it means to have a private moment to themselves, an unrecorded, unanalysed thought. And that’s a problem because privacy matters, privacy is what allows us to determine who we are and who we want to be.’

He added: ‘The conversation occurring today will determine the amount of trust we can place both in the technology that surrounds us and the government that regulates it. Together we can find a better balance, end mass surveillance and remind the government that if it really wants to know how we feel, asking is always cheaper than spying.’

The slight problem I’ve got with this is that there are two entirely distinct and different points here. One is indeed the lack of privacy that comes from living our lives online, and with that tracking device that is a smartphone in our pockets. But I tend to think that the commercial applications of all of that will come out in the wash. Those who want the greater privacy will adapt their behaviour, perhaps give up some of the things that revelation could give them. Alternative suppliers (of which there are many already) will arrive and people will be able to choose.

It’s when the governments start doing the same things that we have problems: for of course the whole point of them is that in any one territory there is only one of them. Thus the corrective of competition cannot be applied.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.